• Rafael Lemkin
•             Dr. Raphael Lemkin is a living legacy because of coining the term genocide. He came up with the idea in order to encourage governments to take action regarding mass murders of European Jews. The significant issue about Lemkin is that he fought with all his mighty in order to prevent persecution of people even if they were not of his community. History indicates that his fight against innocent killings started before the Second World War. He was a profession in philology and managed to acquire competent skills concerning law. Despite fighting for the stopping of killings towards European Jews, he also tried to terminate the killing towards other communities. For example, the killings of Christian Assyrians by the Iraqis disturbed him very much where he decided that something ought to be done. Winston Churchill nominated him twice for Nobel Price because of the role he played in the fight against genocide. Unfortunately, he was not awarded the price because of various reasons as explained below (Curthoys, 2005).
•             One of the main reasons that contributed to the failure of Lemkin to receive the Nobel Peace Prize according to the officials is that he was unofficial man. One reason that showed he was unofficial is that his autobiography is written with pencil all throughout the paper (Curthoys, 2005). Lemkin had no office or assistance eligible to help in rectifying minor mistakes in his writings (Sands, 2011). Even though he managed to convince the United Nations to pass a law that, would prohibit any more killings and convict anyone, found with such mistakes, his work was not complete. He did not manage to help in setting a strategy that would help governments to ratify the convection. This job was left to ordinary citizens who had no idea of deep meaning of genocide. This means that his work remained unfinished. The consequence of this mistake is that genocides continue to happen even to date (Serbyn & Lemkin, 2009).
•             The other reason that contributed Lemkin in failure to receive the Nobel Prize is that he was exceedingly patient. Scholars consider that he played a crucial role in making sure that there was an established conviction in the international law to those engaging in any act that relates to genocide. The law would help to in offering prime punishment to genocide criminals. However, scholars claim that Lemkin was exceedingly inpatient because he failed to stop the killings that were conducted by Hitler and the Nazis (Sands, 2011). Considering that he was in the fight for this particular mission, he was in a position to convince many other governments to stop the killings that left many Jews dead. His problem was that he was single minded that means he did not refer opinions from other people as would have been the right option to do.
•             The other main reason that contributed Lemkin not to receive the prize is that there were political wrangling concerning some of the articles in his report (Sands, 2011). According to Lemkin, social murder would be considered genocide. However, he did not offer reliable information concerning political and economic groups how they would be convicted. This meant that his work incomplete and this means he did not attain the recommended requirements to receive the prize compared to other nominated participants. Another reason that made him not to be the best candidate is that there were disagreement among some of the officials and many scholars concerning crediting of his views. Some scholars argue that there is no established way of knowing whether many of the points that he delivered were of his own or there were from other forces behind him.
•             Some scholars argue that the information offered by Lemkin fail to express the level of norms and principles to follow in cases that relate to genocide (Sands, 2011). The United Nations had to modify many of the statement issued by Lemkin in order they can be able effective in the International Court. The scholars argue that in order for the information offered by Lemkin to be effective without making any change, he could have offered the right rules and principles to follow in cases related to genocide. Some other scholars argued that he was inactive in matters relating to writing. He had the opportunity to record all views and opinions from different perspectives in matters related to genocide. However, there is very little of his work that could be found (Serbyn, & Lemkin, 2009). This means that he was a failure in making sure that future generation would get the opportunity of learning what he took many years to attain.
•             The history of Lemkin and his issue regarding genocide fails to offer his opinions towards the history of genocide. He fails to offer detailed information through writing on how he answered critical questions regarding genocide. This would help to shape future complications concerning cases of this nature. The largest part of his work is about his own views and therefore fails to recognize opinions of other stakeholders in his work (Sands, 2011). These were some of the reasons that contributed to Lemkin fail to receive the Nobel Prize.      
•            
•                                                                               
•            
• References
• Curthoys, A. (2005). Raphaël Lemkin's ‘Tasmania’: an introduction. Patterns Of Prejudice,           39(2), 162-169.
• Sands, P. (2011). A MEMORY OF JUSTICE: THE UNEXPECTED PLACE OF LAW IN             INTERNATIONAL LAW-- PERSONAL HISTORY. Case Western Reserve Journal Of International Law, 43(3), 739.
• Serbyn, R., & Lemkin, R. (2009). Lemkin on Genocide of Nations. Journal Of International         Criminal Justice, 7(1), 123-130.